Quote:
Originally Posted by Joborule
It is if he's holding back a hockey personnel that knows what he's doing.
|
And I'm saying that folk needen't and shouldn't accept one quip from an ex-employee with an axe to grind as the gods honest truth of that.
Regardless, presumably Ken King makes business decisions from a business perspective and thus should only be bumped if a reasonable persuasive argument can be made that he's making (on aggregrate) poor business decisions. Which should show up in the teams bottom line. I feel relatively confident that should Calgary Flames Ltd. become on aggregrate a money losing venture that Ken King would be bumped.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joborule
Let the GM's GM and do what THEY think is best for the team so a cup can realistically return to Calgary ASAP.
|
You're not thinking from a business perspective... from a business perspective it doesn't matter whether any cups come to Calgary ever. From a business perspective (again on aggregrate) Zero Cups + Profit is better then Many Cups + Loss. Now realistically speaking many cups should correlate with Profit but that's neither here nor there. In regards to Ken Kings job the performance of the team on the ice is entirely secondary to the performance of the team in the wallet.
If you want to make a compelling arguement that he should be bumped bring forward conclusive evidence that...
A: Ken King fails to properly delegate (and no, the contents of MK interview is not conclusive evidence);
B: That improper delegation results in negative, stagnant, or otherwise unmaximized profit for the Calgary Flames;
C: That profit differential isn't offset by any reasonable superior performance measure over the whole of Calgary Flames Ltd.
I'm not saying that Ken King is good or bad at his job. I, nor anyone else on CP I imagine, don't have the information to make that determination. All I'm saying is that determining that Ken King ought to be bumped on account a short radio interview by Mike Keenan is beyond silly.